Rulings

  1. Unwarranted use of a customer’s credit card for personal purposes; 6 months professional disqualification

    22 June 2017
    Professional ban

    Defendant was asked by his employer to cancel a customer’s bank account. Instead, defendant requested a credit card to the name of the customer. Defendant then withdrew €3200 from the credit card for himself. The Disciplinary Commission ruled that defendant’s actions constituted a clear breach of the Banker’s oath and sanctioned a 6 month professional disqualification. The Commission did take into a account that defendant understood that his actions were wrong and that he had reached an accommodation with his former employer to pay back the money.

  2. Using and spending a client’s money without permission; 1,5 year professional disqualification

    22 June 2017
    Professional ban

    Defendant had a close relationship with an elderly client who suffers from mild dementia. Defendant asked for money from the client, which he then spent in a casino. After that, he took money from defendant’s account without asking, for a total sum of €4750, which he also spent on gambling. After an alarm was raised about the money withdrawals, defendant tried to cover up his transgressions. The Disciplinary Commission ruled defendant’s actions to constitute a serious breach of the Bankers’ oath and sanctioned a 1,5 year professional disqualification.

  3. Private expenditures with corporate credit card; reprimand

    24 May 2017
    Reprimand

    Defendant used a corporate credit card of her employer, a bank, for private expenditures. She then tried to cover up these expenditures by marking the expenditures down as corporate. She then asked her manager to declare the expenditures as legitimate, which he did not knowing that the spending was for personal purposes. The Disciplinary Commission ruled that defendant breached the Banker’s oath and sanctioned her with an official reprimand.

  4. Unwarranted viewing of private customer data; 6 months professional disqualification

    24 May 2017
    Professional ban

    Defendant frequently viewed private financial data of his parents-in-law without cause, gleaning information which then tempted the defendant to send his in-laws an anonymous postcard. Defendant also viewed private data of other customers and of his partner. All his actions were in violation of his employer’s internal rules, a bank, and also of the Bankers’ oath, the Disciplinary Commission ruled. The Commission sanctioned defendant with a personal disqualification of 6 months.

  5. Forgery of accountant’s statement; 1 year professional disqualification

    24 May 2017
    Professional ban

    Defendant worked as an intermediary for a bank. As part of the employment agreement, defendant was obliged to present an official accountant’s statement to the bank every three months. Because defendant could not present one, he decided to hand over a forgery. The Disciplinary Commission ruled that defendant breached the Bankers’ oath. Because defendant did not show any remorse over his actions, the Commission handed down a 1 year professional disqualification.

  6. Conflict of interest; 1 year professional disqualification

    10 March 2017
    Professional ban

    Defendant has been ruled guilty of a conflict of interest by the Disciplinary Commission. Defendant was employed as a financial advisor by a bank, in which position he advised a client of the bank. However, defendant privately took out a loan from the bank’s client to buy himself a house. Defendant used the bank’s systems to transfer the necessary funds from the client's account to the account of the selling party. When the transaction was flagged by the bank and refused, defendant tried to cover up his actions.

  7. Unwarranted viewing of private customer data; 6 months professional disqualification (2)

    10 March 2017
    Professional ban

    Defendant frequently viewed private financial data of customers without cause. Closer inspection by her employer later revealed these customers to be people in her own immediate surroundings. Defendant also shared private information gleaned from the bank accounts with her partner, while she should have treated this information as strictly confidential. Defendant not only clearly breached internal rules of her (now former) employer, she also violated the Bankers’ oath, the Disciplinary Commission ruled. The Commission handed down a 6 month professional disqualification.

  8. Banker’s oath jurisdiction; private actions

    15 December 2016

    Defendant received money in his private bank account from a corporate client of the bank he worked for, while knowing that this money was not meant for him. Instead of rectifying the situation, defendant divided the sum and transferred the amounts to several bank accounts, one of them belonging to his then-girlfriend, who worked for the bank’s client at the time. Defendant transferred the money back to the company’s bank accounts only after repeated requests by the bank, his employer.

  9. Wrongly blocking a bank account; oath breached, but no sanctions

    15 December 2016

    Defendant blocked the bank account of a customer, after several attempts to contact that customer (the plaintiff in this case). Blocking the bank account was not permitted according to internal rules of the bank. Defendant did not discuss the blockade with his supervisor. It is plausible that the customer was inconvenienced by the defendant’s actions. The Disciplinary Commission ruled that defendant did not carefully consider the interests of the customer and did not put the interests of the customer first.

  10. Unwarranted viewing of private customer data;6 months professional disqualification

    15 December 2016
    Professional ban

    Defendant frequently viewed private financial data of a customer without cause. This was not permitted by the bank according the company’s internal rules. Defendant said that it is possible that colleagues may have used her account login data to access customer data. The Disciplinary Commission did not think this to be plausible. Through her actions, defendant breached the Banker’s oath, the Disciplinary Commission ruled, and sanctioned her with a 6 month professional disqualification, during which time she may not work in the Dutch banking sector.

Pages